39 comments:

I want to say that I thought your Salon piece was really smart. I, too, think the current election is about the GOP reaping the Tea Party whirlwind.

Nonetheless, this shaped up to be a fairly close election and probably will be. In that context, I think that Romney failing to frame the election as "is this the economy you want?" rather than "is this economy better than the nightmare of late 2008?" is a serious and fundamental mistake both of where we are and where we have been. At the margin, I think that matters.

I'll disagree so far as to ask exactly how Romney would ever have been able to make his case? I'll grant you that "is this the economy you want?" is a marginally better frame for the Republicans, but how do you argue it?

I'm sure the Obama campaign always had the oblique version of "are you better off than 4 years ago" in their hip pocket. It's not an obvious winner, but it is better in the context of the economic freefall of Oct '08 - mid '09.

(As I believe Poli Sci agrees, it's not so much that the overall economic numbers are bad enough where a president can't get re-elected, it's more about how those numbers are moving in the 6-12 months before the election that matters.)

And then Romney would have to put forward an actual plan, rather than falling back on "Obama sux, and here I am as an alternative". We've seen Boston re-tool their "59-point economic plan" down to a "5-point economic plan" - and the five points are still all platitudes centered around tax cuts and deregulation.

Jonathan, I hope you're proved wrong that Romney's speech, and what it revealed doesn't matter in the election results.

I agree, the closed information circuit, and the shunning of critics, are the real problem for Republicans now. I think they've taken Romney, who likely is a good and capable man, McCain before him, and forced them into contortions beyond compare. I wonder if he had visions of correcting some of the epistemic closure; and didn't see how it would entangle him. Would he even recognize as himself were he able to step back and take stock?

But I hope you're wrong because Romney's speech brings some very important discussions to the fore. In explaining who that 47% are, I've seen a lot of news media laying out the real financial condition of our country in the last week; explanations of what it means to be working poor; numbers on household income that bring to light just how many families struggle.

That's an important first step toward having a real discussion about entitlement reform; it's an important step for the coming discussions Congress will have as they deal with the sequester, which will hit the 47% a lot harder then it will the 1%.

Just to clarify for whatever it's worth: the thing that I was referring to above as not mattering is the supposed gaffe in which Obama said that Washington can't be changed from the inside. Big flap whichever day it was, or at least the Romney campaign was pushing it hard.

I'm not sure about how much 47% will matter electorally, but I agree with Scott, and I wouldn't rule it out as something that could matter to voting around the margins.

And I don't know that it "matters" in this sense, but I definitely agree that it is revealing of what GOPers are thinking.

It is fascinating how Democrats have become the "foreign policy" party. I wonder if, in '16 when the GOP has been out of the WH for 8 years and Obama's policies are the status quo, if the GOP will have evolved to have a Ron Paulish foreign policy. They'd have to tweak it in order to satisfy the defense contractors and hawks at least a little bit... But maybe it's possible.

"We will not ship away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, or detain without trial or charge prisoners who can and should be brought to justice for their crimes, or maintain a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law. We will respect the time-honored principle of habeas corpus, the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention that was recently reaffirmed by our Supreme Court."

Nothing like this appears in the current platform and we all know why: http://reason.com/archives/2012/09/21/were-all-in-detention-now

I think it's highly, highly unlikely that we'll see a Paul-type foreign policy from the GOP in '16.

As far as the Dems...I think the criticism can be taken too far, but I don't disagree with it; as you all know, I was pushing that point about the platform during the spring and summer, and it's striking how little interest there is in it from many liberals.

How does the GOP recover from the Obama era? He's taken away/they've given away their polling advantage on foreign policy, economic growth, moderation, etc. What do they have to offer voters going forward?

So you really don’t think Rand Paul has a chance? He’s been making inroads with the tea party and evangelical communities that were fractured in 2012. If he can add their numbers to his father’s base of enthusiastic activists and guaranteed fundraising, I think he could be a very formidable candidate.

There are still plenty of civil libertarians and peace activists in the Democratic Party, but Ron Paul supporters are the only organized group opposed to the Security State.

Rand Paul proposed legislation to end military aid to Egypt, Libya and Pakistan, -- unless the first two arrest the individuals who have attacked our embassies and the last releases the man who found Bin Laden and is now being tortured in prison. Not a single Democrat voted for Rand's bill:

"...it's striking how little interest there is in it from many liberals.

.

Well, it wouldn't be so striking to you if you acknowledged that there is nothing "liberal" about the contemporary Left, particularly the hard Left as represented on this site. Now yes, the hard Left would instantaneously morph into opposition to the same things they now support, but that's just the typical hypocrisy.

The Paul type limited government folks will wax in coming years, and even more rapidly if Obama is reelected. And as the Left will be embracing all of the current foreign policy foolishness, that means their opposition will be heavily influenced by that limited government strain in opposition. This is just the yin and yang of it all.

Just to put it in presidential terms, if Obama wins reelection, in 2016 the Left will be facing off against either a Scott Walker strain, or a Rand Paul strain, and likely a composite of both. Neither will speak highly of what Obama has been doing to that point, nor will they have spoken highly of the Christie/Romney strain they will have completely rejected in the just concluded primary, which supports the current foreign policy.

A neo-isolationist GOP is easy to imagine, but it would be more Fortress America than peace party. (Think of the politics of 'strategic' ballistic missile defense.)

The structural problem for Paulite foreign policy is the deep-rooted cultural pugnaciousness of the white Southern electorate. They have never gotten over Appomattox Court House.

Religion plays in here as well. The GOP is demographically inclined to see the Middle East threat as not the Islamic world's version of the religious right, but as Islam itself. Today's GOP isn't much interested in foreign policy in general, but it has plenty of bomb-Iran sentiment.

Rick, those are very good points. It's unlikely that there will be dramatic change in the South, but there are signs that change is occurring. Both Perry and Bachmann pandered to non-interventionists in the primary. Ron Paul has dominated support from the most politically-active members of the military. He even won the Primary vote in Norfolk VA, home of NATO command and the largest military installation in the world. That's gotta count for something..

Actually, the only ones who can't get over Appomattox are the contemporary Left, and their obsession with skin pigmentation, even in a discussion about the Left's own current aggressive and warlike foreign policy, proves it. It's amusing how you managed to work your obsession even into this. ;-)

Very good point about Southern 'cultural pugnaciously' predating the Civil War. Didn't Mark Twain not-entirely-jokingly blame the war on Walter Scott's novels?

On the enthusiasm for Ron Paul among military people, I don't really know what to make of it. At least in science fiction geekdom there's a lot of people who are at once libertarian-identifying and strongly drawn to the military ethos. Robert Heinlein was the exemplar and perhaps progenitor of this combination. Pimping a bit, go to:

http://rocketpunk-observatory.com/spaceguideF-L.htm

And scroll down to 'Libertarian Militarists.'

All of which, I suspect, goes to show something that I believe our host has noted more than once: People don't necessarily choose their political affiliations on formally logical grounds. Which surely goes for libertarians as much as anyone else.

Yeah, I'm with Rick here and not Couves. I really don't see the bulk of the GOP shifting significantly. It could happen, and I've talked many times about how internal change within parties is always possible...but I just don't see anything like that coming soon.

My guess, also, is that if Obama wins there will wind up being a whole lot more room on the hawkish, pro-torture side than on the other side. I do think he'll get out of Afghanistan (or very close); it's more likely than not that he won't engage in any more adventures more extensive than Libya was; and while again I don't disagree with the civil liberties criticism, public opinion isn't with Ron Paul on that stuff at all.

Take foreign policy out of the equation entirely: if the GOP can't use foreign policy to drum up support due to Obama's successes, they'll run a candidate on a platform that focuses on issues where they have popular support. Eventually, in '16 or '20 they'll win the White House. If, in that time, Ron Paul and his wing of the party have shifted the party far enough towards non-intervention and whatever (I don't actually know if Ron Paul has any other reality based policies), then we'll have a non-interventionist Administration. And if that works out for them, maybe the GOP will adopt it as a lasting part of the agenda. Sound realistic?

Rick, I think military support for Paul is easy to understand -- they see first hand how pointless these wars are.

Jonathan, what kind of support would you say the NDAA enjoys? I'm guessing 25%, comprised largely of neocon dead-enders and people who believe Obama and/or the government can do no wrong. (I can't find a real poll for it.)

What mattered this week was the extent to which Republicans turned on Romney. Combine that with the media utterly dismissing anything that Romney says, and the campaign finance numbers, and the polls, and this was the week that the Romney campaign started to visibly fall apart.

Secondarily, the PA Supreme Court ruling that puts the voter ID law in jeopardy.

Obama's "bounce" seems to be turning into a real structural thing, that's gotta matter. I remember JB saying we have to wait "7 to 10 days" to see how the polls shake about a bit ago, but can't remember if that was more or less than 10 days ago. Also Nate Silver showed big changes the battle for the senate and others have pointed out that the Democrats could take back the House. That matters, if only because it drives a very different narrative for the final six weeks. Also, I went and knocked on doors for Obama today, so that has to matter!

Can I tell a door knocking story (like one of those those JB voting on primary day posts)? I talked to one guy, in his late 30's to early 40's, in a run down apartment building who was wearing a hipster like t shirt with a old timey ad for "steam grain threshers." He had just moved in and thus wasn't registered to vote, so I got him to fill out a voter reg form and while we were talking, he told me about the historical society he belongs to that builds and maintains 19th Century farm machinery, like steam powered tractors and stuff (I thought "steam grain threshers" was the name of a punk band). Anyway, its a great example of how big and diverse this country really is and how big and diverse are politics really are. And so yeah, while this guys was painting a 1880's steam powered tractor, no he wasn't obsessing over "you didn't build that" or Chris Cristi not mentioning mitt enough. That said, he was a big supporter of the President.

is that the narrative of "Romney is toast" has begun to form. From the Libya and 47% 'gaffes', to the campaign insiders griping to the press, to the down-ballot Republicans running in tight races disavowing their nominee, to the stories of Romney having money woes.. to the Village starting to write their stories asking how can Romney come back now.

It's been 16 days since the end of the DNC. Looking at the polls, either you believe in an America without cellphone households, or you believe Obama has a solid lead in most of the swing states.

Why does this matter?

Because the Romney-aligned Restore Our Future SuperPAC is nearly tapped out. After pushing $150-200 million on various anti-Obama ads that have had minimal effect on the President's favorables, it's got to be temping for Rove's American Crossroads outfit to re-allocate their resources to the sudden outbreak of bad news in GOP senate contests.

And when did Karl Rove complete his outsourcing of the Republican National Committee anyway?

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Here's a question. Romney once again embraced Obamacare this week, at the Univision candidate forum. Has anyone heard any serious blowback from the conservative movement? If there was a big deal made over making Mitt walk it back (again), I completely missed it.

(And I think this could be another data point to make the case that the Republican money men have largely given up on Romney.)

I'd say the fact that Obama's own inspector general investigated Obama's Fast and Furious operation and not even his own IG could squelch the massive blunders and coverup the Obamabots engaged in. Not that this will get covered in the lefty media, obviously. It'll disappear sorta like the bogus claim that a murderous Al Qaeda attack on US embassies was a result of YouTube posts by people (illegitimately in the Obamabots' eyes) exercising their right to free speech.

No coverage. No political accountability required here, apparently. Dead Americans, in both cases, yet the Left thinks these issues are best swept under the rug.